The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-03-12
Correspondence.
LETTER FROM REV. H. r.. NYE.
TowANDA, Pa, March l, 1887.

May; but the air is clear and crisp, the
hills are crowned with the whitest snow,
and it is as cold as it was when the New
Year stood knocking at the door.
Before me upon my table are several
copies of THE UNIvERsAL1sT (reminding
me of the dear old Star y, some of them
bearing dates of 1886. Br. Merrifeld's
article,
Had Nature Beginning?"
with the papers it called forth, I have
glanced over again. Mr. Merrifeld's posi-
ton seems to have been regarded as very
novel and strange; but it is not new at
all. In a very able book by Bishop
Clarke, of Rhode Island, " The Primary
Truths of Religion" published some
twenty or twenty-five years ago, the same
position is very forcibly maintained. The
book itself is one of rare merit and may
safely be recommended as one which can
not fail to interest thoughtful and studi-
GUS minds in all churches and beyond
all. Two or three of it's different chap.
tiers / class as among the best theological
papers I have ever read. My copy has
gone out Of my hands, but the book was
published by Appleton & Co., New York.
Future or no Future Punishment"
In a Gospel Banner, by my side, is
an article from a we'll known and es-
teemed layman in our church, defending
his favorite position that all punishment
is limited to this world. Sin is sown, he
insists, in the flesh; and must be pun
ished in the feeh. A man cannot SOW
wheat in Maine and reap the harvest in
Illinois. The illustration in defence of
the position seems apt and forcible, but is
surely quite misleading. If a man should
| commit murder in Maine, he would suffer
punishment (morally) in Illinois or in any
other place to which he might flee. The
hands SOW wheat, but the hands cannot
sin. The sin is in the man who uses the
hands to carry out the purposes of the
mind. The mind sins, and the body, as
such, never. A man sows good or evil,
in the moral realm, in his own soul; and
in his own soul he must reap the fruits
of his deeds, whether good or bad. What
ever may be true of the main position,
this old argument against future punish
ment should be cast to the moles and
bats. The Rev. Savillion w. Fuller, of
Philadelphia, an excellent and eloquent
man, once preached and printed SER
mon from the text, "We brought moth
ing into this world, and it is certain that
we can carry nothing out" and one of
his conclusions was, as remember, that
as I'VE brought no sin into this world, it
is certain that we can carry none out; :"
another illustration of literalizing about
equal to that of sowing and reaping in
the flesh
Prof. Stanford Mitchell.
MIR. Mitchell is now well-known West
and East as the singer of our Church.
He has recently been in my immediate
vicinity, aiding the resident pastors in
Athens, Towanda and Standing Stone.
We find him not only splendid vocal
ist but devoted, consecrated worker in
our churches, and he breaches finely. He
gave us most instructive and inspiring
sermon in Towanda and one which
would have elected the warmest COM
mendations from any Universalist pulpit
in the land.
Now and then meet in your columns
a reference to
Bishop Merrill,
and to his favorite position that God is
not the Father of all men, but only of
the righteous. AS men are born into the
world, no man is Gods child until con-
version, if the position is sound. No
man can properly pray, "Our Father,
! who art in heaven" until he becomes
righteous and is adopted into the family
of God. How, then, can the Father say Of
the adopted child, "This, my son, was
dead and is alive again; he was lost and
is found? Lost men belong to some-
body. If to Satan, they surely are not
lost, but at home in their own fathers
housed But Bishop Merrill believes in
backsliding-b believes that men do back
slide. To whom do backsliders belong?
And should a Methodist bishop sin, to
whom would he belong? Once changed
from nature to grace, could he fall and
become child of the devil in any other
sense than in character or spirit? The
unbelief of an atheist does not destroy
the truth that there is one living God.
And the sinfulness of millions who wan
der from their Fathers house cannot de-
stroy the truth that there is one God and
Father Of all.
The Three Lessons in Bible Universalism,
are carefully prepared and will doubt
less have a wide circulation. Certainly
hope so. While am bit surprised not
to see little more thorough work in pre-
senting tine proofs of the final restora-
ton of all, the seventh question and an
swer are more full and complete than the
eighth, and the last should, at least, have
been more strongly put. We often fail
to make our affirmations in this respect as
positive as we ought; and even in the
texts to which answer eight refers see
no reference to those luminous passages
in the Romans, which declare the COM
plete destruction of sin and the final right
eousness of all men. II. II. NYE.